You do know if you believe in the Bible then you know there isn't anyone on other planets.

"God gave His only begotten son....." to us here on earth. Right?

Well here it comes don't shoot me. I feel that we are just one creation out of many. There might not be beings out there that look just like humans on earth but there is other living organisms out in the universe. We have not even discovered all creatures on earth not to mention what lies ahead in space. Only 500 years ago the world belived it was flat, who knows what else we are going to learn in the near future.

Even this world has had many dispensations. Dispensation=period of life, specificly human life. When all is said and done many of the "human" fossils that have been found are from some of those earlier dispensations. Just like this isn't only rock in space to have human like or intelligent occupants nor will we be the last.

One thing I do know, because I've seen it, is the spirit world. No, I didn't have to die to do it--although I've been close, some of those times I was wide awake and functional. When we die we retain our shape and intelligence but enter a different dimension without bodies and slightly different rules.

Logged

Life is a school. What have you learned? :brian: The greatest danger to our society is apathy, vote in every election!

you can't believe the BIBLE as GOD'S WORD and only believe part of it. without the whole of it your foundation crumbles. it is written a house divided shall not stand. if you believed there would be no need for this discussion!

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

I am a staunch believer in the veracity of the Holy Scriptures (fulfilled prophecy itself confirms the supernatural source of the Bible) a Bible student,Church historian as well as Bible teacher. I also believe there are other worlds with other races of humanity who did not fall the way our world did (see Job 1:6). Nowhere does the Bible say that this planet is the only one with life on it. That we are alone in the universe is another Dark Ages leftover of the same kind that said the universe revolves around the earth (Capernicus proved otherwise and was persecuted) and that God is a three-headed triune being (no offense,Trinitarians, just telling the truth here. The Trinity doctrine did not exist until the 4th century).

I know one other thing also. We did not "evolve" from rocks. The science of genetics and the laws of probability have forced many Darwinists to throw the theory of evolution and origin of species out the window. However, I know there will always be diehards. How many of you knew that the Bible says the earth is round,thousands of years before Columbus sailed to prove it, in Isaiah 40:22? Yes, it was the "science" of the day that said the earth was flat.

"Following Washington Irving's 1828 biography of Columbus, Americans commonly believed Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because Europeans thought the Earth was flat.[9] In fact, the primitive maritime navigation of the time relied on the stars and the curvature of the spherical Earth. The European knowledge of the diameter of the Earth had improved since the Renaissance which started a few decades previously, and this knowledge had spread between sailors and navigators[10]. This had been the general opinion of ancient Greek science, and continued as the second opinion (for example of Bede in The Reckoning of Time). In fact the Earth had generally been believed to be spherical since the 4th century BCE by most scholars and almost all navigators[citation needed], and Eratosthenes had measured the diameter of the Earth with good precision in the second century BC[11]. Columbus put forth (incorrect) arguments based on a significantly smaller diameter for the Earth, claiming that Asia could be easily reached by sailing west across the Atlantic. Most scholars accepted Ptolemy's correct assessment that the terrestrial landmass (for Europeans of the time, comprising Eurasia and Africa) occupied 180 degrees of the terrestrial sphere, and correctly dismissed Columbus's claim that the Earth was much smaller, and that Asia was only a few thousand nautical miles to the west of Europe. Columbus' error was put down to his lack of experience in navigation at sea[12]."

>>>>>>In fact the Earth had generally been believed to be spherical since the 4th century BCE by most scholars and almost all navigators[citation needed],<<<<<<

It might help to remember that Wickipedia is simply made up of articles submitted by people who may or may not have any academic qualifications. And even then academia itself cannot agree in many areas. I am not sure how anyone can accept the sentence above, which is the main point, without any primary source citation. It even admits to having no evidence for the claim (maybe they should have cited Isaiah 40 :) ). And if the sentence is true, then that flies in the face of what has been commonly known and taught for centuries. But my main point here is that regardless of words to the contrary the idea of a flat earth is not biblical, and never was. Many professed Christians claim to accept the Bible, but truth be known very few actually do,and accept tradition over the Bible.

PDMaddox Do you really believe that nobody thought the earth was flat until the 1890s? Do you really believe that the acceptance of this crackpot theory (which BTW the article does not include any of the Bible verses that this crackpot supposedly based his theory on) by a very small sect represents biblical teachings?I would suggest a closer and more scrutinizing reaing of these sources.For example, the paragraph posted by abejaruco says the following:

>>This had been the general opinion of ancient Greek science, and continued as the second opinion <<<<

What was the "first opinion"? Were there any "scientists" who touted and believed the "first opinion"? Of course there was, otherwise the statement is meaningless. Just as there are scientists who believe in special design ( the new "second opinion"). However,those who disagree with the hypothesis do not accpet those scientists as true scientists because they do not agree. As a religious researcher, I have come to examine all things very closely, knowing that clever and misleading words and concepts are a dime a dozen.

Looking things upon wickipedia is fast and easy, but there is no guarantee of truth there. But hey, to each his own.

>Do you really believe that nobody thought the earth was flat until the 1890s?

>However, I know there will always be diehards. How many of you knew that the Bible says the earth is round,thousands of years before Columbus sailed to prove it, in Isaiah 40:22? Yes, it was the "science" of the day that said the earth was flat.

How many more "flat earth" scientific theorists are still out there?

NO, I just was pointing out that there is a body of people (you know die hards) that think the world is flat even after it was proven to be wrong. Agreeing with you on the die hard thingy.

>Looking things upon wickipedia is fast and easy, but there is no guarantee of truth there.

Remember Hopeful, all history has been written by the winner. Is that always the truth or the truth as written? Just like all info you come across, be it spoken or written.

Please accept my apologies for getting your username wrong.I have been equating it with the old Atlanta Braves pitcher.

>>>>Remember Hopeful, all history has been written by the winner. Is that always the truth or the truth as written? Just like all info you come across, be it spoken or written.<<<<

Very true. That is why it can take years of research to find the real story on historical matters. Just following the links on Wickepdia,I found that its own statements were contradicted by Wickepedia itself! All we can go by are primary source documents,if they have not been altered. I spent over two years researching the history of the Trinity doctrine alone. Unfortunately, Rome was not kind to dissenting opinions as they appeared in historical documents,and destroyed many of those documents.

As Mulder and Scully used to say on The X Files,"The truth is out there".

We just need to work very hard and put in countless hours to find it. Most are content to accept whatever professor Superduck tells them. Or whatever their church pastor tells them.

The other day I read this thing about snowflakes http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/alike/alike.htm and how two can not be identical no matter how many have fallen throughout the history of the world. I'm thinking that must bee a whole lot of snowflakes. I can imagine billions falling in just one good snowstorm.

Then yesterday I was watching this UFO stuff on one of those science channels. While most scientist don't think Aliens have visited earth, they mostly believe there could be intelligent life out there some where. Their reasoning is because there are so many billions of galaxies with many billions of stars each. Surely there is another out there with an Earth like planet around..... and this connection with snow flakes crossed my mind. Perhaps there are so many variables for life to take hold and survive and evolve long enough to develop intelligence that it is like the snowflake. No two are alike so no two can have intelligent life.

And I have watched a lot of those shows that talk about earth and the life there on. Is seems that it is a wonder that we are even here. So many things had to be exactly right.

Now as far as life just suddenly appearing out of some quagmire.... why doesn't it happen today?And as far as life evolving, like from monkey to man, why hasn't it been an on going thing and why isn't it still happening today? Why isn't some newly evolved man walking out of the jungle today? Why didn't he do it yesterday, and why not again tomorrow?

One more thing. It is said that the dinos were wiped out 63 million years ago and the only animals that survived that ice age were probably small creatures. Now I wonder how many different evolutionary changes it would have taken to go from one of those creatures to the humans we have today. Would one million changes get it done? Or would it take many more than that?

Logged

:rainbowflower: Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. :rainbowflower:

That is exactly why the "age of the earth" keeps getting older and older. For the evolutionists, unaccountable and unprovable time is their only ally, except maybe a liberal interpretation of the "fossil record". The more complicated we find the simplest systems to be (remember when Darwin spoke of "simple cells"? Well, we now know a "simple cell" is as complicated as an F18 fighter jet) the more time must be added to the evolutionary equasion. As the odds of evolution by chance at the genolevel become more and more astronomically improbable, the only answer is to add more and more millions of years to give it a chance. Let's look at it this way. For a healthy cell to mutate into another healthier cell at the genetic level by chance, the odds are about the same as throwing a pile of lumber into the air and having it land in the form of a house, complete with stairs and kitchen cabinets.

If someone wants to believe this I am fine with it. But to me it would take far more faith than believing in a creator who designed it and put it into motion. That is, many people regard macro-evolution as a religion, not a science. True science can be replicated under controlled conditions. That is the definition of science. Macro-evolution (of the Darwinistic variety) cannot be and has never been replicated at all by anyone in any setting. Therefore it is in a permanent state of theorum. On the other hand, the strata levels as seen through out the world can indeed be replicated under controlled conditions in a lab by means of a simulated cataclysmic event; a flood. It was replicated on a larger level by the Mount Saint Helens eruption and consequent erosion, and trees found standing up right through several layers of newly formed "strata".

Anyone interested in learning more about this can PM me their address and I'll send a series of DVDs that cover everything from the age of the earth to the origin of man to the latest in genetics research.